-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017)
0.04
0.03981422 = product of:
0.17916398 = sum of:
0.015992278 = weight(_text_:information in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015992278 = score(doc=3494,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.1631717 = sum of:
0.12643087 = weight(_text_:theories in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12643087 = score(doc=3494,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.59745836 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.03674083 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03674083 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Pages
- S.22-36
- Source
- Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
-
Beghtol, C.: Classification theory (2010)
0.03
0.025013885 = product of:
0.11256248 = sum of:
0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011192262 = score(doc=3761,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
0.101370215 = product of:
0.20274043 = sum of:
0.20274043 = weight(_text_:theories in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20274043 = score(doc=3761,freq=14.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.95806485 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- In the library and information sciences, classification theories are used primarily for knowledge organization, either in a manual or in a machine environment. In this context, classification theories have usually been developed initially as a support for specific knowledge organization classification systems, although the theories and the systems have influenced and re-influenced each other in particular ways throughout their lives. This entry discusses theories for knowledge organization classifications using examples from a number of classification systems, but no one system is discussed at length. Instead, the entry is organized into sections that deal first with classificatory issues in general and then with theories of content, theories of structure, and theories of notation for knowledge organization classifications.
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Frické, M.: Logic and the organization of information (2012)
0.02
0.022859931 = product of:
0.06857979 = sum of:
0.020123173 = weight(_text_:information in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020123173 = score(doc=1782,freq=38.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.29590017 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
38.0 = termFreq=38.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
0.0193852 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0193852 = score(doc=1782,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16542503 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
0.029071424 = weight(_text_:techniques in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029071424 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.17034985 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Logic and the Organization of Information closely examines the historical and contemporary methodologies used to catalogue information objects-books, ebooks, journals, articles, web pages, images, emails, podcasts and more-in the digital era. This book provides an in-depth technical background for digital librarianship, and covers a broad range of theoretical and practical topics including: classification theory, topic annotation, automatic clustering, generalized synonymy and concept indexing, distributed libraries, semantic web ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). It also analyzes the challenges facing today's information architects, and outlines a series of techniques for overcoming them. Logic and the Organization of Information is intended for practitioners and professionals working at a design level as a reference book for digital librarianship. Advanced-level students, researchers and academics studying information science, library science, digital libraries and computer science will also find this book invaluable.
- Footnote
- Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)
- LCSH
- Information Systems
Information storage and retrieval systems
- Subject
- Information Systems
Information storage and retrieval systems
-
Green, R.: Facet analysis and semantic frames (2017)
0.02
0.02014706 = product of:
0.090661764 = sum of:
0.058733147 = weight(_text_:techniques in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058733147 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.34415868 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
0.031928614 = product of:
0.06385723 = sum of:
0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06385723 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.
-
Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010)
0.02
0.017650716 = product of:
0.052952148 = sum of:
0.013707667 = weight(_text_:information in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013707667 = score(doc=2945,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023498412 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.01574607 = product of:
0.03149214 = sum of:
0.03149214 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03149214 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)
-
Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014)
0.02
0.015297981 = product of:
0.04589394 = sum of:
0.013190207 = weight(_text_:information in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013190207 = score(doc=1778,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.01958201 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01958201 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.013121725 = product of:
0.02624345 = sum of:
0.02624345 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02624345 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.
- Date
- 8. 4.2015 16:22:13
-
Fripp, D.: Using linked data to classify web documents (2010)
0.01
0.014972444 = product of:
0.067375995 = sum of:
0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009233146 = score(doc=4172,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
0.05814285 = weight(_text_:techniques in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05814285 = score(doc=4172,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.3406997 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to find a relationship between traditional faceted classification schemes and semantic web document annotators, particularly in the linked data environment. Design/methodology/approach - A consideration of the conceptual ideas behind faceted classification and linked data architecture is made. Analysis of selected web documents is performed using Calais' Semantic Proxy to support the considerations. Findings - Technical language aside, the principles of both approaches are very similar. Modern classification techniques have the potential to automatically generate metadata to drive more precise information recall by including a semantic layer. Originality/value - Linked data have not been explicitly considered in this context before in the published literature.
-
Szostak, R.: ¬A pluralistic approach to the philosophy of classification : a case for "public knowledge" (2015)
0.01
0.013487187 = product of:
0.06069234 = sum of:
0.015992278 = weight(_text_:information in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015992278 = score(doc=5541,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
0.044700064 = product of:
0.08940013 = sum of:
0.08940013 = weight(_text_:theories in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08940013 = score(doc=5541,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.42246687 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Any classification system should be evaluated with respect to a variety of philosophical and practical concerns. This paper explores several distinct issues: the nature of a work, the value of a statement, the contribution of information science to philosophy, the nature of hierarchy, ethical evaluation, pre- versus postcoordination, the lived experience of librarians, and formalization versus natural language. It evaluates a particular approach to classification in terms of each of these but draws general lessons for philosophical evaluation. That approach to classification emphasizes the free combination of basic concepts representing both real things in the world and the relationships among these; works are also classified in terms of theories, methods, and perspectives applied.
- Content
- Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Exploring Philosophies of Information'.
- Theme
- Information
-
Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014)
0.01
0.013099614 = product of:
0.03929884 = sum of:
0.0065951035 = weight(_text_:information in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0065951035 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
0.01958201 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01958201 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
0.013121725 = product of:
0.02624345 = sum of:
0.02624345 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02624345 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.
- Source
- Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
-
Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013)
0.01
0.012106838 = product of:
0.05448077 = sum of:
0.009326885 = weight(_text_:information in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009326885 = score(doc=2720,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
0.045153882 = product of:
0.090307765 = sum of:
0.090307765 = weight(_text_:theories in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.090307765 = score(doc=2720,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.426756 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.2, S.545-557
-
Choi, I.: Visualizations of cross-cultural bibliographic classification : comparative studies of the Korean Decimal Classification and the Dewey Decimal Classification (2017)
0.01
0.010694603 = product of:
0.048125714 = sum of:
0.0065951035 = weight(_text_:information in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0065951035 = score(doc=3869,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
0.04153061 = weight(_text_:techniques in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04153061 = score(doc=3869,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- The changes in KO systems induced by sociocultural influences may include those in both classificatory principles and cultural features. The proposed study will examine the Korean Decimal Classification (KDC)'s adaptation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) by comparing the two systems. This case manifests the sociocultural influences on KOSs in a cross-cultural context. Therefore, the study aims at an in-depth investigation of sociocultural influences by situating a KOS in a cross-cultural environment and examining the dynamics between two classification systems designed to organize information resources in two distinct sociocultural contexts. As a preceding stage of the comparison, the analysis was conducted on the changes that result from the meeting of different sociocultural feature in a descriptive method. The analysis aims to identify variations between the two schemes in comparison of the knowledge structures of the two classifications, in terms of the quantity of class numbers that represent concepts and their relationships in each of the individual main classes. The most effective analytic strategy to show the patterns of the comparison was visualizations of similarities and differences between the two systems. Increasing or decreasing tendencies in the class through various editions were analyzed. Comparing the compositions of the main classes and distributions of concepts in the KDC and DDC discloses the differences in their knowledge structures empirically. This phase of quantitative analysis and visualizing techniques generates empirical evidence leading to interpretation.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2013)
0.01
0.008689869 = product of:
0.07820882 = sum of:
0.07820882 = product of:
0.15641764 = sum of:
0.15641764 = weight(_text_:theories in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15641764 = score(doc=789,freq=12.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.7391631 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
- Abstract
- Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.
-
Tennis, J.T.: Never facets alone : the evolving thought and persistent problems in Ranganathan's theories of classification (2017)
0.01
0.008560826 = product of:
0.03852372 = sum of:
0.0065951035 = weight(_text_:information in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0065951035 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
0.031928614 = product of:
0.06385723 = sum of:
0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06385723 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.
-
Blake, J.: Some issues in the classification of zoology (2011)
0.01
0.0064241993 = product of:
0.028908897 = sum of:
0.009326885 = weight(_text_:information in 4845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009326885 = score(doc=4845,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4845, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4845)
0.01958201 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01958201 = score(doc=4845,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4845, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4845)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- This paper identifies and discusses features of the classification of mammals that are relevant to the bibliographic classification of the subject. The tendency of zoological classifications to change, the differing sizes of groups of species, the use zoologists make of groupings other than taxa, and the links in zoology between classification and nomenclature, are identified as key themes the bibliographic classificationist needs to be aware of. The impact of cladistics, a novel classificatory method and philosophy adopted by zoologists in the last few decades, is identified as the defining feature of the current, rather turbulent, state of zoological classification. However because zoologists still employ some non-cladistic classifications, because cladistic classifications are in some way unsuited to optimal information storage and retrieval, and because some of their consequences for zoological classification are as yet unknown, bibliographic classifications cannot be modelled entirely on them.
- Content
- This paper is based on a thesis of the same title, completed as part of an MA in Library and Information Studies at University College London in 2009, and available at http://62.32.98.6/elibsql2uk_Z10300UK_Documents/Catalogued_PDFs/ Some_issues_in_the_classification_of_zoology.PDF. Thanks are due to Vanda Broughton, who supervised the MA thesis; and to Diane Tough of the Natural History Museum, London and Ann Sylph of the Zoological Society of London, who both provided valuable insights into the classification of zoological literature.
-
Frické, M.: Reflections on classification : Thomas Reid and bibliographic description (2013)
0.01
0.006020518 = product of:
0.05418466 = sum of:
0.05418466 = product of:
0.10836932 = sum of:
0.10836932 = weight(_text_:theories in 1766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10836932 = score(doc=1766,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.5121072 = fieldWeight in 1766, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify the ontological and epistemological basis of classification. Design/methodology/approach - Attention is drawn to a 1785 article on abstraction by Thomas Reid and the contents and theories of the article are explained. The Reid article both provides a sound approach to classification and is interesting historically as it influenced the classification pioneer Charles Ammi Cutter who, in turn, is responsible for much of the modern theory of functional bibliography. Reid's account is supplemented by brief descriptions of fallibilism and fuzziness. An associated view, Aristotelian essentialism is explained and criticized. Some observations are offered on the role of prototypes in classification and on the monothetic-polythetic distinction. Findings - Reid's theories, suitably embedded in fallibilism and augmented with a respect for truth, provide a sound ontological and epistemological basis for classification. Originality/value - Reid's essay, together with an appreciation of fallibility and determinate and indeterminate properties, amount to a good basic theoretical foundation for cataloging.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Classification (2017)
0.01
0.0056761983 = product of:
0.051085785 = sum of:
0.051085785 = product of:
0.10217157 = sum of:
0.10217157 = weight(_text_:theories in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10217157 = score(doc=3610,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.4828193 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
- Abstract
- This article presents and discusses definitions of the term "classification" and the related concepts "Concept/conceptualization," "categorization," "ordering," "taxonomy" and "typology." It further presents and discusses theories of classification including the influences of Aristotle and Wittgenstein. It presents different views on forming classes, including logical division, numerical taxonomy, historical classification, hermeneutical and pragmatic/critical views. Finally, issues related to artificial versus natural classification and taxonomic monism versus taxonomic pluralism are briefly presented and discussed.
-
Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018)
0.01
0.005257821 = product of:
0.023660194 = sum of:
0.007914125 = weight(_text_:information in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007914125 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
0.01574607 = product of:
0.03149214 = sum of:
0.03149214 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03149214 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- This is the fourth in a series of papers on classification based on phenomena instead of disciplines. Together with types, levels and facets that have been discussed in the previous parts, themes and rhemes are further structural components of such a classification. In a statement or in a longer document, a base theme and several particular themes can be identified. Base theme should be cited first in a classmark, followed by particular themes, each with its own facets. In some cases, rhemes can also be expressed, that is new information provided about a theme, converting an abstract statement ("wolves, affected by cervids") into a claim that some thing actually occurs ("wolves are affected by cervids"). In the Integrative Levels Classification rhemes can be expressed by special deictic classes, including those for actual specimens, anaphoras, unknown values, conjunctions and spans, whole universe, anthropocentric favoured classes, and favoured host classes. These features, together with rules for pronounciation, make a classification of phenomena a true language, that may be suitable for many uses.
- Date
- 17. 2.2018 18:22:25
-
Szostak, R.: Classifying the humanities (2014)
0.00
0.0042571486 = product of:
0.03831434 = sum of:
0.03831434 = product of:
0.07662868 = sum of:
0.07662868 = weight(_text_:theories in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07662868 = score(doc=1084,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.36211446 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
- Abstract
- A synthetic and universal approach to classification which allows the free combination of basic concepts would better address a variety of challenges in classifying both humanities scholarship and the works of art (including literature) that humanists study. Four key characteristics of this classificatory approach are stressed: a universal non-discipline-based approach, a synthetic approach that allows free combination of any concepts but stresses a sentence-like structure, emphasis on basic concepts (for which there are broadly shared understandings across groups and individuals), and finally classification of works also in terms of the theories, methods, and perspectives applied. The implications of these four characteristics, alone or (often) in concert, for many aspects of classification in the humanities are discussed. Several advantages are found both for classifying humanities scholarship and works of art. The se four characteristics are each found in the Basic Concepts Classification (which is briefly compared to other faceted classifications), but each could potentially be adopted elsewhere as well.
-
Bullard, J.; Burns, C.S.; VanScoy, A.: Warrant as a means to study classification system design (2017)
0.00
0.0035476238 = product of:
0.031928614 = sum of:
0.031928614 = product of:
0.06385723 = sum of:
0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 3360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06385723 = score(doc=3360,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 3360, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3360)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of warrant in daily classification design in general and in negotiating disparate classification goals in particular. Design/methodology/approach This paper synthesizes classification research on forms of warrant and uses examples of classification decisions from ethnographic engagement with designers to illustrate how forms of warrant interact in daily classification decisions. Findings Different forms of warrant, though associated with incompatible theories of classification design, coexist in daily classification decisions. A secondary warrant might be employed to augment the primary warrant of a system, such as to decide among equally valid terms, or to overturn a decision based on the primary warrant, such as when ethical impacts are prioritized above user preference. Research limitations/implications This paper calls for empirical research using the application of warrant as an object of analysis. Originality/value The paper connects a ubiquitous and observable element of classification design - the application of warrant - to longstanding divisions in classification theory. This paper demonstrates how the analysis of daily classification design can illuminate the interaction between disparate philosophies of classification.
-
Dimensions of knowledge : facets for knowledge organization (2017)
0.00
0.0035476238 = product of:
0.031928614 = sum of:
0.031928614 = product of:
0.06385723 = sum of:
0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06385723 = score(doc=4154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
- Content
- Inhalt: Richard P. Smiraglia: A Brief Introduction to Facets in Knowledge Organization / Kathryn La Barre: Interrogating Facet Theory: Decolonizing Knowledge Organization / Joseph T. Tennis: Never Facets Alone: The Evolving Thought and Persistent Problems in Ranganathan's Theories of Classification / M. P. Satija and Dong-Guen Oh: The DDC and the Knowledge Categories: Dewey did Faceting without Knowing It / Claudio Gnoli: Classifying Phenomena Part 3: Facets / Rick Szostak: Facet Analysis Without Facet Indicators / Elizabeth Milonas: An Examination of Facets within Search Engine Result Pages / Richard P. Smiraglia: Facets for Clustering and Disambiguation: The Domain Discourse of Facets in Knowledge Organization
